Kurn v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.
District Court, E.D. Missouri
1Opinion of the Court
COLLET, District Judge.
These cases against the same defendant were submitted together. In each the plaintiff interstate carriers seek recovery of switching allowances made to the defendant shipper, which allowances were later held by the Interstate Commerce Commission to be unlawful preferences. The defenses are: First: That the actions are barred by the three-year limitation of the Transportation Act,1 or, Second: By the five-year Missouri Statute 2 of Limitation, and, Third: That the payments were voluntary. The facts were stipulated and summarized, are as follows.
The plaintiffs Kurn and…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. MaxwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Central Iron & Coal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Baldwin v. Scott County Milling Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
- United States v. American Sheet & Tin Plate Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1937
- TM Partridge Lumber Co. v. Michigan Cent. R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1928
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Sanantex Oil Co. v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1955
- The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company v. M. E. Belt and Hazel Belt, D/B/A Belt Fur and Wool CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1977